PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 8, 2026Scientific Reports2 citationsOpen Access

Multi-objective optimization of hybrid laser cleaning process parameters for carbon deposits based on bayesian-SVR and NSGA-II

YSYishun SuYHYong HuQZQunli Zhang

Key Points

  • This research aims to optimize laser cleaning parameters to minimize both surface roughness and carbon residue from deposits.
  • Comparative analysis of four machine learning models: SVR, XGBoost, RF, and BPNN.
  • Bayesian optimization enhances SVR for carbon residue predictions.
  • Utilization of NSGA-II for generating Pareto-optimal solutions in parameter tuning.
  • Validation through bootstrap resampling, cross-validation, and SHAP analysis.
  • SVR achieved high accuracy for surface roughness prediction (R2 = 0.9874).
  • Bayesian optimization led to a 58.45% improvement in carbon residue prediction accuracy (R2 = 0.8965).
  • NSGA-II identified three operational regimes for optimal cleaning conditions.

Abstract

Hybrid laser cleaning combines continuous-wave (CW) laser preheating with pulsed laser ablation to remove piston crown carbon deposits, but conventional tuning cannot simultaneously minimize surface roughness (Sa) and carbon residue rate (RC). Four machine learning models—Support Vector Regression (SVR), XGBoost, Random Forest (RF), and Backpropagation Neural Network (BPNN)—are compared. SVR achieves optimal Sa prediction (Test R2 = 0.9874, bootstrap R2 = 0.985–0.998). For RC, Bayesian optimization improves SVR from R2 = 0.5658 to R2 = 0.8965 (58.45% increase). Feature analysis reveals divergent sensitivities: Sa responds equally to all parameters, while RC is dominated by frequency and CW laser power. NSGA-II generates 66 Pareto-optimal solutions within narrow parameter windows, identifying three operational regimes: low-Sa (0.894μm, RC = 4.3%), balanced (0.958μm, RC = 3%), and low-RC (RC = 1.9%, Sa = 1.209μm). Comprehensive validation—bootstrap resampling, cross-validation, SHAP analysis, and sensitivity testing—confirms model reliability despite limited data. This framework enables intelligent laser cleaning optimization, reducing trial-and-error costs while providing insights into laser–material interactions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Su et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ada873bc08abd80d5bb63bhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41748-0
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper